WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared evenly divided Wednesday as it heard arguments in a First Amendment challenge to a Massachusetts law that created buffer zones around abortion clinics in the state.

But a significant piece of data was missing: Chief Justice John Roberts, who almost certainly holds the crucial vote, asked no questions. His earlier opinions suggest, however, that he is likely to provide the fifth vote to strike down the law.

The court’s four more liberal members asked questions indicating that they believed that the 35-foot buffer zones created by the 2007 law were a valid response to decades of harassment and violence at abortion clinics in Massachusetts, including a shooting rampage at two facilities in 1994.

“There was a considerable history of disturbances and blocking the entrance,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

Justice Stephen Breyer said the clinic setting may justify some limits on speech.

“Everyone is in a fragile state of mind,” he said.

The lead plaintiff in the case, Eleanor McCullen, has said that she seeks to engage in friendly conversations with women seeking abortions in an attempt to tell them they have alternatives. She added that the buffer zone frustrated her efforts and violated her First Amendment rights.

The court’s more conservative members questioned the need for the law, which they said was a blunt and selective instrument.

“This is not a protest case,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. “These people don’t want to protest abortion. They want to talk to the women who are about to get abortions and try to talk them out of it.”

But Breyer said that only a general prohibition on entering the buffer zone would work.

“It’s just tough to say whether they’re counseling somebody or screaming at somebody,” he said.

The justices and the lawyers arguing before them tried to convey a sense of just how long 35 feet is, pointing to parts of the courtroom and people in it.

“I guess I’m just a little hung up on why you need so much space,” Justice Elena Kagan told Jennifer Grace Miller, an assistant state attorney general.

Miller, the state’s lawyer, said the buffer zone left ample opportunities for speech on other parts of the sidewalk near the clinics and in other places.

“No one is guaranteed any specific form of communication,” she later added. “There is no guarantee, as a doctrinal matter, to close, quiet conversations.”

This drew an incredulous response from Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“Do you want me to write an opinion and say there’s no free speech right to quietly converse on an issue of public importance?” he asked.

“In speech cases,” he added in a chastising tone, “when you address one problem, you have a duty to protect speech that’s lawful.”

Mark Rienzi, a lawyer for McCullen, said the law was unconstitutional for at least two reasons. In limiting its application to abortion clinics, he said, the law effectively singled out one subject. And in allowing clinic employees to stay in the zone, it favored one side of the debate, he added.

“Public sidewalks occupy a special position in First Amendment analysis,” he said, adding that his argument to the justices would sound very different shouted from 35 feet away, particularly if the opposing lawyer was allowed to argue from the usual spot.

Justice Samuel Alito seemed to agree that the law made impermissible distinctions among speakers based on their point of view.

Much of the argument in the case, McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168, concerned how striking down the Massachusetts buffer zones would affect similar zones nationwide around funerals, slaughterhouses, fraternal lodges, political conventions, circuses and the sites of labor disputes.

The Supreme Court upheld a law similar to the one in Massachusetts by 6-3 in 2000 in Hill v. Colorado, with Scalia, Kennedy and Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting. The court has four new members since then: Roberts and Alito, Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Roberts, though he asked no questions Wednesday, has often been receptive to free-speech arguments, and he wrote the majority opinion in a 2011 decision overturning an award of damages for hateful protests near military funerals.

As you comment, please be respectful of other commenters and other viewpoints. Our goal with article comments is to provide a space for civil, informative and constructive conversations. We reserve the right to remove any comment we deem to be defamatory, rude, insulting to others, hateful, off-topic or reckless to the community. See our full terms of use here.

More in News

Drivers along Ayd Mill Road in St. Paul call it one of the most pockmarked roadways in town. Winter melt, age, traffic intensity, deferred maintenance and questionable construction all have taken their toll. St. Paul city officials are continually grappling with the challenge of funding road repair for a growing residential and business population. Outsiders sometimes make unfair comparisons to...

St. Paul Saints general manager Derek Sharrer's stomach was doing backflips as he watched No. 16 seed Maryland-Baltimore County beat No. 1 overall seed Virginia. The team he’s in charge of was about to be out $10,000.

A marker on the Hillcrest Golf Course proclaims the Hillcrest Knoll to be Ramsey County's highest hilltop, though folks in Arden Hills and Shoreview might dispute it. Soon, the 1920s-era golf course may have another claim to fame -- housing, and lots of it. At Larpenteur Avenue and McKnight Road on the city's Greater East Side, Hillcrest represents 112 acres...